Patient-Specific Pessaries for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Using Three-Dimensional Printing: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Vaginal pessaries are an effective nonsurgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when properly fitted. However, pessary fitting and use are often unsuccessful or imperfect. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of using patient-specific pessaries fabricated from three-dimensional (3D)-printed molds to improve POP symptoms and increase overall satisfaction of pessary treatment in patients using standard vaginal pessaries. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing POP treatment with standard vaginal pessaries were enrolled in this pilot prospective study. Patient-specific pessaries were designed and fabricated for each patient using patient input, physician input, and anatomic measurements from clinical assessment. Pessary fabrication involved injection of biocompatible liquid silicone rubber into 3D-printed molds followed by a biocompatible silicone coating. Pelvic organ prolapse symptomatic distress and pessary treatment satisfaction were evaluated before and after a 3-week patient-specific pessary home trial using the validated Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 form and a visual analog scale, respectively. RESULTS: Eight women were included in this study. Changing from standard pessary to patient-specific pessary treatment was associated with an improvement in prolapse symptoms on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (median change, -3.5; interquartile range, -5 to -2.5; P = 0.02) and an increase in overall pessary satisfaction on a visual analog scale (median change, +2.0; interquartile range, +1.0 to +3.0; P = 0.02). All patients reported either an improvement or no change in pessary ease of use, comfort, and the feeling of support provided by the pessary. CONCLUSION: Patient-specific vaginal pessaries are a promising alternative to standard pessaries for alleviating POP symptoms and improving patient satisfaction with pessary use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".